Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    January 11, 2015 10:00pm-10:31pm PST

10:00 pm
>> planning commissions scott with the housing association back here unfortunately again two or months ago we implemented the planning commission but this process has been previously noted to not follow the process and the stakeholders included in the planning for the update chutd neighborhood representatives there's no excuse for that those neighborhoods groups need their input and you'll have us coming to the podium and that's a shameful way to run the process we need nor time the 14 days at least before the next hearing we need a chance for input we should be brought to the tackle not at the public hearings to
10:01 pm
prolong o prolong and waste people's >> thank you. is there any additional public comment okay seeing none, public comment is closed. can i ask staff to first address the question of the addendum and some explanation of what the addendum is and when i expect it to be available. >> good afternoon xhishthsz pardon me i'm dealing with the imply the addendum is curling being prepared in the draft stage on addendum 2 the eir i'm sure you're aware of has been recently certified and found valid by the courts the curnt spelling the last for the record schedule at the end of the month i think the requirement is needs to be done and final list prior to the action by the commission kate can you comment on that i think that's the correct timing for the addendum.
10:02 pm
>> kate and the city attorney's office the eir has to be 3re79d bet the planning commission makes a decision not to say it would be made available earrings it needs to be finalized. >> i'm sorry kate there's no review process with the addendum the nature of the document it is only the document that says the minor changes have been occurred and there's no increase in the severity of the increased effect it's not a particularly interesting document only in draft form and the ero will finalize it i don't want to commit staff. >> let me make a suggestion if i might steve my suggestion is that we we would ask you to initiate
10:03 pm
february 5th and can't get the jumped. >> done two weeks in advance we'll continue it whatever that hearing day is we'll do our best to get it done on the 22nd >> that sound like a fair process to e to me i want to see this housing element finalized it's clearing clear there's a housing crisis we've been talking about it and talking about it for years now the work behind the housing element needs to be there and fair process to analyze that work what i would ask going forward it that we really look at the arena girls their set it is t another a place we'll be solving our crisis the problem is not the goals are not set at the right price it's the challenge
10:04 pm
of us figuring out how to implement that i know the amount of money is extraordinary we need to build affordable housing looking at the challenges of owners doing short-term rentals when they're not supposed to be looking at the ellis act is, of course, something we've been talking about looking at the merging of two units into won those are the things that the planning commission has been able to do and b will continue to do i'll ask in subsequent report we don't aggregate the goals there's a total target of over 28 thousand units we need to look at the income categories. >> commissioner antonini and i want to thank staff for an
10:05 pm
excellent job that is a revised element you know not a full new element but i've been through this process twice before i think that the presentation you gave us was probably the best i've seen as far as an overview of what's going to happen in the future in previous elements a tentedcy to because the statistics on the city 57 or 10 years ago your forwarded looking and projecting the populations and projecting jobs 24 is very important because what we must do is try to address not only the situation today but what that's going to be in the future and people will continue to move here it's a it's a 12kw50ish8 place we need to address not only the population today by the population in the future and
10:06 pm
identify them and try to build where we can courage that's just for the public those are guidelines those are things that state general plan policies but don't not deal with any particular projects they does not dictate you know approvals or disapprovals of projects and to some of the discussion that's gone on by not building more market rate housing we only make the situation worse because there's more competition for what's here we opg those people are coming to san francisco people want to be here and drive up prices of what exists we've got to continue to build as much housing as possible and certainly the market rate housing helps it takes stress
10:07 pm
off the existing stock a couple of questions for staff i was looking at the section on meeting affordability goals and the number given to san francisco looks at accurate based on we've we've built, however, those counties don't make sense coming from alameda and santa clara county for that a while beyond how santa clara got income restricted housing i see a lot of single-family homes out in the dublin area some of the cities are getting criticism from a back and the state for not building affordable housing so i'm wondering how they got 65 percent of meeting their goals or had a very allow goal. >> your last statement will the
10:08 pm
local might be the case the percentages repealed in the map on the presentation is a percentage of that 60 percent affordable target that's required by marina and that's why other than that i don't have an answer. >> i would be skeptic all of 98 for the same reason typically those counties have not built housing relative to san francisco that builds a lot of housing and part of the market rate housing is less expensive in those counties it will qualify. >> unfortunately ervin scrawled all the country side by dublin but that's the bad news it is using upland that could be open space but the good news it is
10:09 pm
providing housing for people and probably found a way to build single-family home for sale homes that are satisfying their goals if we can few and far between if the a way we'll put a dent in our needs thank you very much for the interesting and i'm happy to move to initiate the housing element. >> thank you very much. >> and set the hearing date. >> well, i think february 5th is what staff wants it goes to the board of supervisors and tyler they'll be more hearings we have to allow ourselves time before that date. >> commissioner moore. >> with the caveat with the addendum is issued two weeks ahead of time as comments from
10:10 pm
the commissioners i'm thinking it is a timely and presenting process i have questions they deal with our ability to fully understand the shift in the definition of residential that's occurred between the last housing element and what we're looking at in the update the shift in defining lauld of residential is challenged by the way the airbnb legislation which was approved indeed alternates that definition and in the best of our world as the rest of the state uses a slightly he independence i hope what we're doing is indeed fully understand in its consequences by the city attorney who advise the dependent on those matters but i
10:11 pm
would be interested in the details if they're coming through the in trailing legislation to be issued by supervisor kim's office with early march i'll provide a caution since the department will be spending a lot of resources to update this element we're not taking step 2 before one including checking what the definition of residential could not read and ultimately a linear update commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much a you couple of things real quick i definitely support initially user initiating that item when i started to read the housing element i thought it was like a lot of the general plan they say
10:12 pm
so much they say nothing they're all very good policies and objectives by what the teeth of the actual implementation i started reading it and came to something i wanted to mention i don't know we're going to get in the 2014 housing element but maybe talk about the implementation program my first comment and we'll see if any relatives in actually looking at how things are worded when i read through the implementation of the policies and objectives i noted there were a number of places where the program or the implementation policy was to have some sort of monitoring program there was no conclusion to the policies i'll give you an example i was reading just now there's one that or not now it
10:13 pm
says that planning shall monitor the housing provision with the inclusionary provision and the evaluation method even if the prelims this housing plan has a plan and ends with a plan to date, no middle-income unit have been built interests a lot of areas where effort and energy it's a expended in terms of the monitoring program but no conclusion to the implementation program of what happens if we don't do it there's areas where there are policies that the planning department says they'll investigate so it says you know we'll look at a community planning process in a couple of different areas for a certain action and no elevation of when will we determine if that
10:14 pm
happens or other areas we'll suggest legislation on a certain area or develop a program no conclusion how to see how we do that i'd like to see more teeth in the housing element or whether in a particular document will those programs themselves or the policies themselves i'm going to start looking for if the staff or the executive order says we're going to implement a program to help with you know design of units for you know inclusionary housing i want to see what happens if we don't do that what's the mechanism to check and the next thing a couple policies i understand that we added some policies around displacement i know they are come automobile
10:15 pm
the element didn't change the law in and of itself but determined the road map that formed the lens for the projects that come before us but one thing i've noticed about displacement theres sort of a token element about diversity in the city i want to see more implementation programs it speak not only to displacement of people having housing by maintaining the diversity in the city that's one area i didn't see implementing programs and i sort of that caught my eye when i look at the spifshgz around ethnicity but the fact of the matter the only population that
10:16 pm
as declined is african-american everyone else has percentages of population overall those sectors of the population are maintaining their numbers in the city except african-american so when i look at what's the implementing programs to maintain diversity in the city that in and of itself the african-americans were the population that's declining i see nothing but lots of implementation i'd like to see a discussion around that and whether it means it is strengthening the policy language in the housing element and coming up with implementing the programs as we go on and fourth what's going to work that's something i'd like to see and i sort of had that same feeling not as strong around families san francisco has the lowest percentage around the
10:17 pm
united states but that means that is the lens through which we look to create family sized units we have a small percentage of the population that has families with children you know let alone with families with more than one child nairts what's the incentive to build the units for that population that's already here with the need you've got a target population not there i want to see you know a little bit stronger language in the policy around increasing the population of families in the city because then they will have a need that co-sponsor ponds to the need for them those are my comments other than that hats off to the staff i know that i've said that a lot in the 6 or seven months in the commission i'll echo
10:18 pm
commissioner antonini's comments i love it forward-looking rather than saying in san francisco in 2000 and definitely hats off on the work of the staff. >> commissioner richards. >> i guess just a couple of comments thank you very much for the hard work i have to don't a deeper look at this i need to schedule some time first on process 2009 there was a neighborhood involvement on the process 2014 there wasn't what went into the decision having the neighborhood groups represented? a christen dave i want to explain our outreach process just so i know the housing element is generally a big undertaking in 2009 we spent a year with the public starting
10:19 pm
with the advisory committee which had people to represent each community and community meetings in over thirty community groups the document before i is basically that same document with in his opinion and tucks that was adapted in 2011 and here we are 3 years later the document stand strong i know there was comments about neighborhood character unique to san francisco is around character and that has 9 policies that are craft by the neighborhood groups through the community advisors body in the meetings the feeling was this element the theme of this element is not changes to the existing neighborhood but around solving how to achieve the affordability component that's where the energy was focused on
10:20 pm
that point we reached irritate to stakeholders that were focused on that that was our outreach approach. >> that's great one of the interesting things i have a a little bit which a disconnect here the dir comments i sent in yesterday, i started to pull information from the federal reserve and some of the statistics i was really surprised here we are in 2015 and 25 thousand people left san francisco that made less than $35,000 and yet more people moved in and where 33 are they going to live i was shocked people that moved in not making that much money 2 hundred
10:21 pm
thousand people in the next decade i'm seeing our share is 28 thousand unit it's a disconnect versus the number of units how is that distributed by in case level i have to read it more i want to mayor u make sure it addresses the housing crisis and the policies are good i'd like to see those policies translate into things we can put into our heads to further the objectives that's it i support the motion. >> was that a second. >> director ram. >> thanks i want to thank everyone from their comments and the members of the public i think we're generally there's harder anyone in the room that
10:22 pm
disagrees but the vast majority from the public and commission are issues not to be addressed in the housing element but how we implement it and how much displacement and affordable housing is addressed to be honest we should move forward with the policies and so i would suggest that we do perhaps a bio annual update we have to do an annual update on how the starter of housing acd housing and agency development and how we're doing i significantly suggest we semi annually come to the commission and give that report it is look this is the issue of our time no in question but changing a policy statement in the housing element is not going
10:23 pm
to change whether or not we get the affordable housing but where the funding is coming from and get the programs with specific programs that are in place i suggest we come to you more regularly to update you on the production. >> commissioner richards. >> i think i mentioned this when we complete mr. kelly i'm shocked we have a high vacancy rate if we have a policy to bring those units into the market it will make a significant dent in the market the short-term rental might be x baiting it but it's striking 9.3 percent of vacancy rate. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much just for to commissioner richards i agree with you and it's funny i actually. >> is a percentage of the
10:24 pm
vacancy rate before anything called airbnb or we're aware of any of those that has to do with second homes it was on the ballot there's that issue that is related to short-term rentals so thank you director ram i agree definitely semiannual the reason i brought it up this is a housing policy that can get lost when we talk about and there's a scheduled adaptation meeting
10:25 pm
assuming it is scheduled commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards and commissioner fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places you on item 15 for the next case at 340 bryant street an office he development authorization good afternoon, commissioners
10:26 pm
erica jackson you have a request to allocate 5 hundred thousand jooet secret plus through an authorization at bryant street the project is located south of market neighborhood within a mixed use office zoning district bound by rim con alley and other locations the square feet lot has approximately, six 2 thousand 50 feet it was industrial, however, the building was vacate since 2013, the total request secret represents four percentage of the small cap office space since the publication the department received one letter of support that's being passed out to you now the proposal with standard conditions that the project is
10:27 pm
consistent with the zoning district it's a designed to courage the office unit as well as the small-scale art facilities and permits office use the project is located out of the selma plan and not subject to the pdr xheshgs the project represents the allocation of approximately 4 percent of the small cap office space for allocation it retains the pdr space on the ground floor of the building approximately 16 thousand 5 hundred square feet that project will appraise fees that will benefit the city and is in compliance that concludes my presentation. >> project sponsor please. >> good afternoon john with rubens and rose on behalf of the
10:28 pm
project sponsor this proposes the conversion at bryant street with the ground floor as pdr use there's obviously been a significant incision. >> i'm sorry that's distracting agency heck thank you. >> sorry. >> go ahead. >> there's a lot of decision regarding the pdr conversion in the eastern neighborhoods i want to make clear about what zoning restrictions apply the city-state site a mixed use it is principally permits to the prop m allocation and the eastern silver sub plan also courageous the office use in the district the property is not subject to pdr restrictions there's a number out there isle you've got the s l i to protect against housing and office
10:29 pm
development and the pdrs are allowed you've got 63 reading street another office conversion they were coming before you seeking an exception and this is not 63 reading no restriction or expectations there's pdr zoning sdriksz districts that are expressly to prevent the pdr only some are permitted and again, an accepted that's the pen trees building i think that most are well aware we're not seeking an expectation we were an office principally permitted district and san francisco historic preservation commission has infected or the sponsor of the moratorium of the central plan area this project is no the
10:30 pm
in the central selma area the second zone highly produced area is no subject to pdr measures we've benefit lvns to the commission very careful and the developing censures skefrnz of the commission as a result we're maintaining a ground floor of pdr as part of the project that's 14 thousand 5 hundred square feet of pdr square space swore been working to identify the pdr tenants it is not easy but we did identify two, that will occupy the balance of the space the first one is an electronic car charging company they work with retailers and malls and local governments to small electric cars stations for free


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on